Skip to main content

RMA consents GIS for iwi, data sources, workflows, and case examples

Start with the relationship to place​

For iwi and hapū, a resource consent is not important merely because it enters a council process. The proposed activity may affect whenua, wai, moana, mahinga kai, wāhi, access, whakapapa relationships and responsibilities that exist independently of the Resource Management Act.

GIS can help organise those effects and identify where closer kōrero or analysis is needed. The starting point should be the iwi or hapū kaupapa and responsibilities, not the council's consent categories.

Before building a screening workflow, ask:

  • What relationships and values could be affected?
  • What iwi or hapū plans, kōrero and existing decisions are relevant?
  • Who has the mandate to speak or decide for this kaupapa?
  • What information is suitable for the GIS, and what should remain outside it?
  • What cumulative or downstream effects matter even if the application boundary is small?
  • What does the iwi or hapū need from the applicant or council to make an informed decision?

The consent number and statutory activity type can then be added to that frame.

The RMA is an interface, not the source of tikanga​

Several RMA provisions are important in consent work because they require decision-makers to recognise or consider Māori relationships and Treaty matters. They do not define those relationships.

Common statutory references include:

  • section 6(e), the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu and other taonga
  • section 7(a), kaitiakitanga
  • section 8, Treaty of Waitangi principles
  • section 35A, council records relating to iwi and hapū planning documents and contacts

Official legislation: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1991/0069/latest/whole.html

These are Crown statutory recognitions within the RMA system. Kaitiakitanga, whakapapa and mana whenua do not originate in those sections and should not be reduced to statutory checklist items.

Manā Whakahono ā Rohe can also be relevant to how iwi and councils organise participation and relationships.

Begin with iwi and hapū planning material​

Where an iwi or hapū has an environmental management plan, iwi management plan, freshwater strategy, cultural values framework, settlement legislation or other agreed material, use that early in the workflow rather than adding it after council layers have framed the problem.

Useful context includes:

A plan is still not a substitute for current hapū or iwi mandate where the kaupapa requires it.

Organise GIS checks around relationships and effects​

Whenua​

Possible activities include earthworks, quarrying, vegetation clearance, contaminated land, subdivisions and other land disturbance.

Useful GIS questions include:

  • What whenua and known places are connected to the activity?
  • Could sediment, access changes or earthworks affect places beyond the application site?
  • Are council archaeological or cultural schedules incomplete or only indicative?
  • What historic land, imagery or local records add context?

Do not assume a cadastral parcel is the natural boundary of the effect.

Wai​

Water takes, discharges, stream works, culverts, stormwater, damming and extraction can have effects upstream and downstream.

Useful GIS questions include:

  • Which awa, puna, repo, wetlands and tributaries are connected?
  • Where are mahinga kai, marae or other values in the wider catchment?
  • What cumulative consents or pressures already exist?
  • What monitoring data exists, and what does local observation show?
  • Are small waterways missing from the council layer?

Moana and estuaries​

For coastal structures, dredging, discharges, aquaculture, marinas, reclamation and erosion works, look beyond the footprint.

Consider:

  • currents and receiving environments
  • customary use and mahinga kai
  • wāhi tapu and wāhi tūpuna where authorised for the analysis
  • takutai moana rights and relationships
  • access, views and movement along the coast
  • cumulative effects from other activities

Takutai moana context: https://whakatau.govt.nz/te-tira-takutai-moana/resource-management-takutai-moana-rights

Air, noise and light​

Proximity analysis can help, but sensitive receptor is a planning term, not the whole Māori relationship to place.

Map marae, kura, kāinga and other places where relevant, then consider how noise, dust, light, traffic or visual effects interact with the way those places are used.

Cultural landscapes and places of significance​

A council schedule is one representation for a statutory purpose. It is not a complete inventory of Māori relationships with place.

Use council layers as triggers for inquiry, not as proof that everything outside them lacks significance. Likewise, do not republish an internal cultural layer simply because it would make consent screening easier.

The operational layer can remain simple.

Useful fields include:

  • council
  • consent number
  • applicant
  • activity type
  • status and dates
  • location and location confidence
  • catchment or receiving environment
  • relevant iwi or hapū process or contact role
  • kaupapa or effect themes
  • sensitivity flag
  • priority
  • next action and due date

Avoid turning the intake layer into a repository of sensitive kōrero. Link to controlled material where needed.

Triage without letting proximity make the decision​

A spatial screen can quickly identify applications that deserve attention.

Possible checks include:

  • proximity to approved cultural layers
  • connection to awa, wetlands, estuaries and catchments
  • proximity to marae, mahinga kai or other authorised reference layers
  • overlap with hazards or environmental pressures
  • clustering with similar consents

But proximity is only a trigger. A site 50 metres from a mapped polygon is not automatically important, and a site five kilometres away is not automatically irrelevant.

The relationship, pathway of effect and kaupapa still require interpretation.

Deeper analysis​

Where a consent needs closer work, GIS can support:

  • upstream and downstream effects
  • cumulative effects across a catchment or coast
  • historic imagery and change over time
  • alternative locations or routes
  • exposure to hazards
  • distance and access questions
  • map-based questions for applicants or councils

Keep a distinction between source data, analysis and iwi or hapū interpretation.

Responses should express a position, not just provide feedback​

Feedback can make an iwi or hapū response sound like optional comment on somebody else's process.

Depending on mandate and circumstances, the response may instead set out:

  • the relationship to the affected place
  • the effects or risks identified
  • information that is missing
  • matters requiring further hui or assessment
  • conditions or changes sought
  • areas where agreement has or has not been reached
  • what information cannot be disclosed publicly

Council and applicant consultation guidance can help explain the statutory process, but it should not define the substance of the Māori position.

Existing guidance includes:

Public data sources​

Useful external data can include:

Where council consent data is not published, a regular extract can be useful. Ask for spatial locations, key fields, dates and a data dictionary.

A useful output set​

A small team may only need:

  • an intake layer showing current applications
  • a triage map for internal use
  • a catchment or receiving-environment map for applications needing deeper review
  • a short record of the iwi or hapū position, questions and next action

The GIS should reduce administrative effort and help people see relationships. It should not turn kaitiakitanga into a queue of red, amber and green consent points.

Before relying on the workflow​

Ask:

  • Have iwi or hapū priorities shaped the screening logic?
  • Are Crown and council layers being treated as one evidence source rather than the definition of Māori values?
  • Could sensitive Māori data be replaced with a safe trigger or alert layer?
  • Does the analysis consider cumulative and relational effects beyond the application polygon?
  • Is the output supporting a mandated Māori decision, or merely making council processing more efficient?

That last distinction is important. A Māori GIS consent system should serve the people carrying the responsibility, not simply become an unpaid extension of the council workflow.

Use Government and councils for public-sector data relationships, Authoritative for what? when comparing statutory and other layers, and Taiao data for environmental context around the application area.

Last updated on